New GPU?

[Wazza1212]

Hello,

I am looking to upgrade my PC, i have an FX6300 @ 4.7GHz, and a 7870.

I can either get a new GPU like a 380/390 or 960/970 or a core I5.

What would you recommend i do?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Mussels]

one thread only please. duplicates on the same topic will be deleted.

 

[Brett Stevens]

I would go for the 390 if your PSU will handle it... or the 970 if you had the extra $50 as well.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I guess the other thread was deleted, because I couldn't find it.

Anyways, there's still a big debate going on as to whether the 970 is still the king of the $300+ price range. I think it largely comes down to what card you can get at the best price between the 970 and 390.

 

[NC37]

I'd go 390. The 3.5GB stuttering problem on the 970 should quickly disqualify that. Only other option is the 980 but that is very overpriced.

 

[Aquinus]

For me, I could get a better quality 390 for 30-40 USD less than a 970. It's certainly not a bad card, I don't think you would be disappointed either way.

The only warnings about the 390 is that it will suck down power and that it's a big card. If you have the PSU to handle it and the chassis space to fit it, I would get the 390 over the 970 but, that's me speaking as an owner of a 390, so my view is undoubtedly biased. The Witcher seems to look kind of "meh" on it but, Farcry 4 was amazing. I'm sure your experience will favor one or the other depending on the game.

Personally, I wanted the 8GB of VRAM for longevity sake in case I do decide to CFX it in the long run like I did with my 6870s. The 8GB is simply overkill right now, that's for sure.

The 3.5GB stuttering problem on the 970 should quickly disqualify that.

I think that should depend on how long you plan on having the GPU. I don't plan on replacing my 390 any time soon which makes that 8GB a little more advantageous than the 3.5GB+512MB thing.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

I'd go 390. The 3.5GB stuttering problem on the 970 should quickly disqualify that. Only other option is the 980 but that is very overpriced.

Except when you nail people that say that down to games that actually USE more than 3.5GB at 1080p, the answer goes a bit like this,...

"Shadow of Mordor, eh, um, well, you know..."

Point being, there's more to life than Shadow of Mordor. It's one of the most repetitive forgetful games of 2014.

 

[Mussels]

Except when you nail people that say that down to games that actually USE more than 3.5GB at 1080p, the answer goes a bit like this,...

"Shadow of Mordor, eh, um, well, you know..."

Point being, there's more to life than Shadow of Mordor. It's one of the most repetitive forgetful games of 2014.

that problem is going to become a far bigger issue in the future for someone who doesnt buy a new GPU every year.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

that problem is going to become a far bigger issue in the future for someone who doesnt buy a new GPU every year.

That remains to be seen. It's Maxwell and they have Dx12 capability. As always it really depends how devs want to make their games, esp regarding optimization. Some are probably going to foolishly use it to cram as much bells and whistles into their games as possible, with no regard for performance. There's always the devil may care types. Nothing much you can do about that.

 

[Zakin]

Odd, I still haven't had these mythical 970 stuttering issues at 1440p for almost a year into purchase. But I agree if you can get a 390 at a good price you might as well, so long as you're not biased to either side.

 

[Xzibit]

That remains to be seen. It's Maxwell and they have Dx12 capability. As always it really depends how devs want to make their games, esp regarding optimization. Some are probably going to foolishly use it to cram as much bells and whistles into their games as possible, with no regard for performance. There's always the devil may care types. Nothing much you can do about that.

Your neglecting that DX12 take more memory/object/effect management away from the driver and into the applications hand. Nvidia already driver limits memory usage in the driver for the 970 and if that is taken away they'll have to tell the app its a 3.5gb card. That might bother people more then others.

 

[GhostRyder]

Hello,

I am looking to upgrade my PC, i have an FX6300 @ 4.7GHz, and a 7870.

I can either get a new GPU like a 380/390 or 960/970 or a core I5.

What would you recommend i do?

Thanks in advance!

I would get a 390 in your shoes as that would probably show you the biggest improvement of the options and last the best in the long run (Though in terms of performance, the 970 and 390 are pretty close). An i5 would give you maybe an additional ~5 FPS at most depending on the game (Heavy CPU games will of course be more) but the GPU from what you have already will jump probably ~15FPS as a guess.

That's my advice.

 

[Kanan]

I'd get a GTX 970. Why? Because your CPU is weak and GeForce cards need a lot less CPU power to be maxed out. A 390 will struggle with that kind of CPU, or simply be limited sometimes. The 970 is faster AND the smarter buy in your case because of your weak CPU. Plus it needs less power - means less problems with heat/energy bill. Just in every way the smarter buy, because the 8 GB Ram is just irrelevant now and only maybe important for a Crossfire system where 8 GB can actually be used because the power is available. 3.5 GB will always* be enough for 1080p gaming, for 1440p right now too, but in the future, who knows.

*Until the card is old and needs to be replaced anyway.

 

[Mussels]

I'd get a GTX 970. Why? Because your CPU is weak and GeForce cards need a lot less CPU power to be maxed out. A 390 will struggle with that kind of CPU, or simply be limited sometimes. The 970 is faster AND the smarter buy in your case because of your weak CPU. Plus it needs less power - means less problems with heat/energy bill. Just in every way the smarter buy, because the 8 GB Ram is just irrelevant now and only maybe important for a Crossfire system where 8 GB can actually be used because the power is available. 3.5 GB will always* be enough for 1080p gaming, for 1440p right now too, but in the future, who knows.

*Until the card is old and needs to be replaced anyway.

*the CPU different is not that large - worst case its about 10%. DX12 will change that for future titles.
*power/heat - valid concern.
"3.5GB will always be enough" - are you new to the PC gaming world? 2 years ago "1GB will always be enough" was common. times change, fast.- for a ~2 year investment, this is not good advice.
*8GB VRAM is irrelevant: fair point on multi GPU, but again... VRAM usage climbs year after year. if he keeps this card 2-3 years, 4GB will not be enough then.

my 3GB 7970 was holding me back in a few titles, i'm really confident in a year or so i'd be turning settings down in all major titles to work on that card - 3.5GB is only one setting away from that.

 

[Kanan]

No, i play since about 16-17 years with a own PC, and with PC of my dads some years more. But you didn't read my disclaimer: " *Until the card is old and needs to be replaced anyway. " I really think that will happen before the 970 runs out of ram consistently. 3.5 GB is a lot, still. Just don't forget a Fiji has only 4 GB of Ram with worse compression than Maxwell and it's just nice for 4K. Thats speaking about 4K, not 1080p. For 1080p 4 GB or 3.5 GB will endure a long time, I think. And please don't compare GCN 1.0 to Maxwell.

DX12 is irrelevant right now, sorry. You buy for now not for in 5 or 10 or 15 months (who knows when HE will play his 1st DX12 game?). And his CPU is really weak for a 390 or 390X or Fiji, with a Maxwell he will have less problems with limitation. Btw 10% is a lot.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Your neglecting that DX12 take more memory/object/effect management away from the driver and into the applications hand. Nvidia already driver limits memory usage in the driver for the 970 and if that is taken away they'll have to tell the app its a 3.5gb card. That might bother people more then others.

Yes, into the applications, so it still matters like I said how efficiently the game is made. I think what's worth noting too is right now it matters a lot how devs scale the optimization from low to high settings, because we have quite a variety of memory capacities and types in GPUs lately.

It's really too soon to tell yet how good, bad or neutral the effect of Dx12 in general will be though. I suspect it will be the same as Mantle, with initial growing pains, and even after that period some games benefiting greatly, while others show little to no benefit, like Thief 4 did with Mantle.

 

[xorbe]

I'd get a GTX 970. Why? Because your CPU is weak and GeForce cards need a lot less CPU power to be maxed out. A 390 will struggle with that kind of CPU, or simply be limited sometimes.

This poster knows what's up. Especially if OP is 1920x1080.

 

[Vlada011]

Maybe is even better if he continue to play on GTX770 10-12 months and upgrade on one nice i5-6600K, some Z170 motherboard for 120-130$ and 2x4GB or 2x8GB DDR4.
Maybe even some of Z170 mATX boards. It's perfect for Skylake.
Somehow is easier if finish first platform and later don't need to change several years for gaming, could keep with few graphic replacements.
GTX770 is not SO bad for gaming. If he wait little he could upgrade later on GTX980 for same money.
If he want to upgrade for any cost graphic card than it's better GTX970. On his place I would finished first platform and than easy at least GTX980 when price drop.
Difference between 770 and 970 is not as SLI. It's 50%. Later he have chance to get real 4GB for next 2-3 years.

 

[Toothless]

Soooo no i5 and 380?

 

[rtwjunkie]

that problem is going to become a far bigger issue in the future for someone who doesnt buy a new GPU every year.

Well the thing is, the 970 decidedly falls into the every 1-2 year replacement group. These are the people that buy that price range, knowing that it will need replacing in 1-2 years, and don't mind paying $250-$325. So really, that's why I have said from the moment the scandal hit that it won't be a big deal by the time people are getting their next one.

The people that buy something in this price range and wait till the 3rd year like the $500 and up GPU crowd do, are very small, and basically inconsequential to it's inadequacy on theframe buffer.

 

[Vayra86]

*the CPU different is not that large - worst case its about 10%. DX12 will change that for future titles.
*power/heat - valid concern.
"3.5GB will always be enough" - are you new to the PC gaming world? 2 years ago "1GB will always be enough" was common. times change, fast.- for a ~2 year investment, this is not good advice.
*8GB VRAM is irrelevant: fair point on multi GPU, but again... VRAM usage climbs year after year. if he keeps this card 2-3 years, 4GB will not be enough then.

my 3GB 7970 was holding me back in a few titles, i'm really confident in a year or so i'd be turning settings down in all major titles to work on that card - 3.5GB is only one setting away from that.

Wait, wait wait.

VRAM usage is not growing linear with time at all. In fact, it grows all of a sudden and then comes to a halt for about 5 years or more. Look at the start of the PS3 era and the end of it for a prime example. The only reason we need more VRAM today is because of console ports that are badly ported and apply the consoles' EDRAM or 6 gigs of GDDR5- principle to a PC environment. Now look at The Witcher 3 at max settings, still taking a healthy 1700 MB. That's right, a 2015 game, ported to consoles, with a measly limit of under 2 GB. Even with maxed textures, every bell and whistle, at a glorious 1080p. Crysis 3, arguably still one of the harder games to run on big rigs, is one of the few exceptions that go beyond 2 GB and *actually make use of it* (important little bit there!)... but when you do, CryEngine also doesn't really want to give you 60 fps unless you crossfire or SLI something.

Now, today, we have 4K. This is the ONLY development and reason I see for now and the coming 5 years where you would want more than 4GB. And then there is the consideration whether you could actually run things at your preferred settings at 4K and a decent FPS with the current line up of cards *at all*.

Trust me on my blue eyes: the new consoles have landed and will stay in the game for about 4-5 more years. 4K is going to be enthusiast territory for at least 2 more years, but I reckon even 3 to 4 years, and by then you will most certainly have incredibly appealing alternatives to the 8GB underpowered junk they are selling now.

VRAM is heavily overrated. The 970 proved the point, being the fastest 1080p card with the lowest TDP... and getting there by cutting into VRAM budget. A little trick that AMD with immense VRAM bus -driven cards has no way of competing with - even at top resolutions the gain they have because of that compared to Nvidia is minimal at best. They gain, but is it a sensible pay off considering the power budget required? Look back at the release of Hawaii and you have your answer. The only reason they are still competing is because of price cuts and getting kicked down to Nvidia's smaller xx-107 chip tier.

If any rule of thumb can be followed today, it is that the PC gaming market follows the console gaming market, and that the console gaming market is decisive for the spec requirements of games on PC. Another rule of thumb: console versions run for about 5 to 7 years max.

Bottom line: 8 GB is wasted silicon and power budget on todays' cards. Even the 980ti is edging on being good balance with its 6GB. And not unsurprising, the power budget limits on 980ti actually limit the card at stock cooling. 1+1 = ?

 

[EarthDog]

*hears circus music in my head when reading some posts*

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Well the thing is, the 970 decidedly falls into the every 1-2 year replacement group. These are the people that buy that price range, knowing that it will need replacing in 1-2 years, and don't mind paying $250-$325..

And most of those people probably haven't seen how a 970 when adding another in dual SLI can beat even the 6GB cards (yes I'm talking 980 Ti and Titan X), including at higher resolutions. Again, the 3.5GB mem cap is overblown. There's not enough games that even factor into that equation to be basing your whole decision on it.

 

[Kanan]

FYI: I planned and bought a PC for a good friend 1 1/2 months earlier. The ultimate decision was 290X (no normal user needs 8 GB on that GPU now) vs GTX 970, and I really wanted to take a AMD card because I didn't like what NV did with the 970 (the Ram, Bus etc.), but still, I ended with a Gainward GTX 970 because its simply the smarter buy. The chosen model (a Phantom), was relatively cheap with a good, silent cooler and high boost clock (1304 MHz iirc and he is no overclocker). Plus less power bill, less heat and problems - just face it, NV drivers are better atm. and its the better 1080p card. In the end I chose the 970 for him because the 290/290X/390/ are simply old now, not efficient enough.

btw. I still use a HD 5970 with 2x 1 GB Ram (so basically a 1 GB card in CF) for 1080p gaming - only two games are kinda VRM limited until now: BF4 + GTA 5. In BF4 i dialed back to mid settings, and thats okay because the performance isn't enough for High or Ultra anyway, in GTA 5 its the same. But I could play Crysis 3 on very high settings or even Ultra, I played Tomb Raider with 850/1250 clocks on Extreme (about 30 fps avg, it was fluid enough for that kind of game) and I play CS:GO on the highest settings with 4x AA. Just another example of how senseless it is to talk about 3.5 or 4 GB being not enough for 1080p in the efficient lifetime of a GTX 970. I'm sure 3.5 GB is a lot now and still will be enough in 2-5 years for 1080p gaming.